SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
District & Sessions Judge (HQS) & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Narender Kumar - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 123 of 2019, 124 of 2019; C.M. Appl No. 8808 of 2019, 8801 of 2019
Decided On : 16-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Abhik Chimni, Advocate, Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate, Tania Ahlawat, Advocate, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Palak Rohmetra, Advocate

Courts should refrain from re-evaluating answer sheets or typewriting sheets and should presume the correctness of the criteria applied by the examining authority. The absence of any rule or procedure for re-assessment further invalidates the judicial review.

Headnote:

Judicial Review - Typewriting Test - LDC Recruitment - [JUDICIAL REVIEW] - [TYPING TEST] - [RTI Act, 2005, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Khushboo Srivastava & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 523, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, Gunjan Verma Vs. Vice Chancellor & Ors.,MANU/DE/0336/2005, H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, 2010 6 SCC 759] - The court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the typewriting sheets of the candidates, which is contrary to the established legal principles. The court should have exercised restraint in interfering and conducting the process of re-evaluation itself. The absence of any rule or procedure for re-assessment of the answer scripts/typewriting sheets further invalidated the judicial review. The Impugned Order was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

In December 2009, the Appellant issued an advertisement for filling vacancies of 412 posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The selection criteria included a typewriting test with a minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English, followed by an interview. The Respondents applied, qualified the test, and were selected. However, a court order directed all candidates to undergo a re-typewriting test, leading to the termination of the Respondents' services when they failed to achieve the required speed. The Respondents then filed a writ petition, and the learned Single Judge re-evaluated their typewriting sheets, declaring them successful and entitled to back wages and benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the typewriting sheets, which is contrary to established legal principles. The absence of any rule or procedure for re-assessment further invalidated the judicial review. The Impugned Order was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court had the authority to re-evaluate the typewriting sheets of the candidates and declare them successful, and whether the absence of any rule or procedure for re-assessment invalidated the judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi: The court should exercise restraint in interfering and conducting the process of re-evaluation itself. The absence of any rule or procedure for re-assessment of the answer scripts/typewriting sheets invalidated the judicial review. The court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the typewriting sheets, which is contrary to established legal principles.

Final Decision: The Impugned Order was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - The present intra-court appeals arise out of a common Order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th January, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order']. Since the factual background and grounds of appeal urged therein are nearly identical, the same are being heard together and decided by way of this common judgment.

    BRIEF FACTS

    2. Briefly stated, in the month of December 2009, Appellant issued an advertisement for filling vacancies of 412 posts of Lower Division Clerk [hereinafter referred to as 'LDC']. As per the selection criteria prescribed in the advertisement, the aspirants were required to qualify a typewriting test and have a minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English, followed by an interview.

    3. Both the Respondents herein applied and qualified the typewriting test and were called for interview. Narender Kumar secured 121 marks in total, with 26 marks in typewriting test; and likewise, Neeraj Kumar Sangwan secured aggregate of 113 marks, with 29 marks in the typewriting test. Both were selected, and joined as LDC with Respondent No. 1. Meanwhile, one Sh. Anupam Garg, who had also appeared as a candidate for the selection process, filed a writ petition before this Court [being W.P.(C) No. 3467/2010] praying for direction to the Respondents therein to modify the list of candidates selected for interview by including his name. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 26th May, 2010, but subsequently, in the challenge laid to the afore-noted decision in LPA 417/2010, this Court vide Order dated 9th August, 2010 directed that all candidates to whom the offer of appointment was given, including candidates who had already joined and those who had not yet joined, would be required to sit for a typewriting test once again [including the Respondents herein] with only those who attain the speed of 30 words per minute becoming eligible for appointment to the post of LDC. The Court further clarified that the aforesaid directions would also apply to those who have already joined duties before the passing of the Order dated 26th July, 2010, but did not attain the speed of 30 words per minute. The relevant portion of the said Order is extracted hereinbelow:

      "Since the appointment itself is on purely temporary basis we direct that, rather than terminating the appointment of all the 138 candidates to whom the offer of appointment have been given and who have joined and those candidates who have not yet joined, they should be required to sit for a typewriting test once again and only those who attain the speed of 30 words per minute would be eligible for appointment.

        The Chairman of the Recruitment Committee, who is present in person, states that the Examination shall be held within two months. It is clarified that these directions will also apply to those, who have already joined duties before the passing of the orders dated 26th July, 2010 but did not attain the speed of 30 words per minute."

        4. Thereafter, two Circulars dated 13th August, 2010 and 17th August, 2010 were issued by the Appellant herein, clarifying the criteria for evaluation of typing speed. It was stipulated that the criteria of 30 words per minute would be assessed on the basis of a passage of about 450 words, carrying 30 marks to be given to the candidates for typing within 10 minutes. The candidates were allowed to repeat the passage, if time permitted. In order to qualify the prescribed typewriting test, a candidate had to obtain a minimum of 20 marks from a passage of about 450 words. One mark for every 15 mistakes was liable to be deducted out of the total marks. Similarly, one mark was to be awarded for every 15 additional words typed in addition to 300 words. Shortfall below 300 words in typing was to be treated as a mistake. The said Circulars further clarified that those who had already joined the service pursuant to the LDC Examination, 2009 and had obtained marks in the range of 20 to 29.5

                                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                          1
                                          2
                                          3
                                          4
                                          5
                                          6
                                          7
                                          8
                                          9
                                          10
                                          11
                                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                          supreme today icon
                                          logo-black

                                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                          Please visit our Training & Support
                                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                          qr

                                          Scan Me!

                                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                          whatsapp-icon Back to top